Originally Posted by PaleRider

But that isn't what the false prophets are all about. They are in the business of trying to convince those who lack education that bad is good and good is bad.

You have to admit that she is good at what she does. If one hadn't taken time to actually study, she does sound convincing.




Now that is one of those things she would necessarily leave out. Those who haven't studied wouldn't know. The lie is as much about what isn't said as it is about what is said.

Originally Posted by Themaniacster

To answer this question, you need to know wether the fetus is alive and human.

Not whether some person considers it alive.

But whether it is alive, by definition. Since a fetus has cells and DNA, does breath, uses energy, and every other thing that makes it definably alive does exist in a fetus.

Now is a fetus Human?

A fetus has Human DNA, making it Human.

Therefor since a fetus is alive and human, it does have the right to live by our constitution.

Originally Posted by Themaniacster

To answer this question, you need to know wether the fetus is alive and human.

Not whether some person considers it alive.

But whether it is alive, by definition. Since a fetus has cells and DNA, does breath, uses energy, and every other thing that makes it definably alive does exist in a fetus.

Now is a fetus Human?

A fetus has Human DNA, making it Human.

Therefor since a fetus is alive and human, it does have the right to live by our constitution.

Originally Posted by mulp

A fetus breathes? That would make it a fish, wouldn't it?

Originally Posted by mulp

Stem cells have Human DNA, so stems cells are themselves human, and as they can create any organ in the body, they are even more human, and as stem cells can be retrieved from cord blood, then the process of extracting and culturing the stems cells is thus procreation.

Originally Posted by mulp

That makes stopping stem cell research to be the equilvant of abortion....

Originally Posted by PaleRider

Not much you, I, or anyone else can do about that. We don't get to separate the sheep from the goats.

Originally Posted by PaleRider

You would think by now that I would have become accustomed to the tragic lack of knowledge demonstrated by the pro choice side of the argument but I never do. I think I have and then someone steps up and utters a statment of such profound ignorance than it catches me off guard. Contratulations mulp, you caught me off guard.

Breathing is the mundane (that means common, ordinary, banal, unimaginative, or uneducated) word for respiration. Respiration is the sum total of the physical and chemical processes in an organism by which oxygen is conveyed to tissues and cells, and the oxidation products, carbon dioxide and water, are given off.

So yes mulp, unborns at any stage are breathing and if you had a better education, you would know this. You should have been taught that in the 5th or 6th grade.

Originally Posted by OkhamsRazor

The Constitution is not in any way a document that draws nay distinction from science. It's all about law and government, to be specific, property law. Therefore, sadly, the issue of when life begins does not play a significant role in the argument I put forth here.

When the nation was being formed, it was of much debate as to who was going to be able to vote. Up until that point only property owners could vote. And only property owners had any measure of sovereignty. But not everyone in the Americas was free. Paradox...

They really liked the system and structure of property law, but hated the limitations of who was allowed to participate in it. So how do you establish property rights for everyone if they own no real property (real estate)? Simple enough, you declare that each person is his/her own property. Follow so far?

But simply being born does not fully endow you with all rights. For example, you don't have the right to vote until you are 18. At that time you are deemed wholly and totally responsible for yourself and your actions. Until you turn 18 you are considered dependent upon your parents (guardians).

Okay, so let me jump to the point. In order for one to take ownership of ones property and must establish varying degrees of independence from it's parents. The first step in doing so is being born. Until that time as you are wholly separated from your mother, you have not taken possession of your property.

Since the fetus is property, (I know, describing as such is a bit repugnant, but we are talking strictly property law and sovereignty), and it doesn't own it yet, who does? The mother. And the mother (assuming she's over 18) has full property rights. Rights over her body and everything in it. Under the constitution, she is a sovereign entity. She and she alone has the right to determine what she does with her property.

Therefore, abortion is constitutional. Morally repugnant, to be sure, but the basic premise of our system of law and government, is based on sovereignty and property rights.

Having said all that. The landmark case of Roe v Wade was not decided on property rights. It was decided on Privacy Rights, which are derived from property rights.

In closing, I would like to say I am opposed to abortions except in generally accepted exceptional circumstances. But I see any attempt to pass a law against it as a disastrous move. It's nothing more than a band aid for the failure of teaching each successive generation proper decision making and giving them proper moral guidance tools. ANY positive moral guidance. I think we need to turn off the TV and the air conditioners and begin living as communities again.

This approach would not only do more to abate the abortion issue safely, but would address all social ills at once. Drug abuse, alcoholism, youth crime, gun issues, etc. Making laws concerning these problems has hardly made a dent, and has only filled up the prisons and overburdened the courts.

I just can't help but think that all proactive measures would fall by the wayside. The issue in the minds of many will be considered mission accomplished and walk away from the actual sources of the problem.

Another thought that continually haunts me is all the time, money and energy that is wasted on trying to pass these laws that could be applied to families and women at risk of either getting into the situation (pregnancy prevention education) or already find themselves in the situation of being pregnant and considering this option.

In closing I would like to suggest,.. again, that no politician that has been handed a guaranteed vote getter with a 40 year track record is going to do a hell of a lot to solve that problem. Therefore all the time, money and energy is wasted. You may as well spend hours chucking silver dollars into a wishing well for all the good it's gonna do.

So my question, which I've put to PW many times is... Exactly how much time and specifically money is spent on the effort to create and pass this moral legislation? When the application of morals should be spent in the community.

Originally Posted by mulp

By that definition, the tumor that Ted Kennedy has is a human life. It has human DNA, in fact it is his own DNA. And the reason tumors grow so rapidly is they can extract whatever oxygen it needs by causing blood vessels to grow to feed it just as the blastocyst causes the placenta to grow blood vessels to feed it so it can develop into the embryo. Thus the tumor is a breathing human infant.